Does God exist? (12 Viewers)

[Lundy]

By arguing that a creator (ie God) requires a creator, you are immediately taking away the atrributes of God. A God is a being, which is all powerful, all wise and is self sufficient. He doesn't require a creator, as he is one and only.

By applying your sort of logic you are ignoring the attributes of a God, rather you are introducing the physics being something which is independant of the universe. You are looking at the figure of God from the perspective of science. God, put simply beyond comprehension.

If god is beyond our comprehension, how can you bestow him with a definition? You're admitting that god is beyond your understanding, ergo, you know nothing about his existence. Your definition is of a christian god, merely a human conception passed down through the millennia but with no solid factual basis at all.

 

[Salima]

laura_beth have you ever read the Qur'an, I'm only saying this after what I saw what you wrote in the Does God Exist? thread. If you easily believe in god by reading the Bible you will certainly find the Qur'an quiet interesting.
The Qur'an just reafirms what has been said before and in a way whcih makes the truth un-alterable (i know that's not a real word but it works). Remember there is another profit ot come, well to me he already has...and if you read the hadith(like the gospels of mark, luke...etc) and sunnah, or prayers or the Qur'an at all you'll realise how true it is! I looked to the BIble, no offence to you is emant when i say this next hting, but I found it confussing and inadequite, so I turned to the Qur'an, sometimes difficult to understand if the translation into english is a bit wordy but very understandable if you find the right one. A copy of the interent, such as htis favourable link below, is a good version....it is good to have knowledge of the religions about you at least...so I do say, read it, for form reading coems knowledge and from knwledge coems all things, meaning understanding adn patience...both keys to pradise.

Qur'anic transliteration:

http://transliteration.org/quran/home.htm

I suggest you choose pickthall or Yousuf Ali.

and it is a good read for anyone who wants to braoden their mind, like you Without a Face

It is possible to have god without universe, if youopen your mind ot sucha thing. LIke what about that black matter, which no one knows what it is? I'm not saying this is god, but I'm sure god could explain such a htign to you if you opened your mind to god, but then again, you are youa nd htis doens't seem a likely thing, and don't dare ask me what it is I don't know, this doesn't mean though that god doesn't exist and that i haven't opened my mind to god...just that it is...i'm just saying i fyou really wanted to kow and prayed enough for such a thing like in the time of ramadhan and fasted every day and kept constant in your fast adn patient you could get the knowledge for allah or god or whateva you wish ot name him in your head, will reward you for such loyalty you could call it for piousness adn reverence, wowo i've never reall y sued those words before for such a thign as which i am discussing...
p.s. sorry bout the messy paragraph i just wrote, but it's equal to the way my mind flows and i know better way than that.

 

[laura_beth]

Read it all before you reply, you've asked me to explain so here it is.
In the entire realm of existence there are only two types of things: created things and non-created things. Those are the only two types of things that can exist. When we look at man-made objects surrounding us, we see created things. We know they had a beginning, because we've seen them in production, or we have read about their manufacture, etc. These things are easy to classify.

Other things, like those that are found in nature, are also created things. We sometimes understand the processes that began their formation, but we also base that conclusion on the fact that they're following the law of entropy. Things are decaying, eroding, or dying. We can understand that they had a beginning because left to themselves they will deteriorate into something less than what they started. Now, this is not to say that everything that is eternal is not created, but only anything that is not eternal must be a created thing by definition.

From a purely scientific viewpoint, the most upsetting admission of the modern era is when science had proven the universe is running down. This led to Big Bang models and others, but the conclusion that could not be avoided (though they tried very hard through expansion and contraction models, etc.) is that the universe had a beginning, and therefore is a created thing. This admission is huge to those trying to prove the universe doesn't need God to exist!

Now we can look at the other category, the non-created things. One would expect something that had no beginning to not be constrained to time as we measure it. In fact, most scientists know that time is tied to the universe as a dimension like length, or height, or width (this is why physicists refer to matters as happening in space-time). This idea means that time is a created thing also. A non-created thing would have to exist outside time altogether! We would then expect that non-created thing to never change because, being outside time, it is the same at its beginning, its middle, and its end. A non-created thing must necessarily be eternal.

So, if the created thing must come from something else, then it must come from something that exists prior to it. If we look at all the created things as a whole, they must come from a non-created thing. That is the only logical option open to us!

So far we have made a lot of head way. We know the universe is a created thing. We know that it must come from something else. We know that some type of non-created thing must exist in order to have created things exist. We also know that this non-created thing must be unchanging and outside of time. That is a lot. What we haven't done is label that non-created thing. We call that which is non-created, that which fashioned our existence, "God". We would expect, then, for that non-created thing to be more complex and more intelligent than the thing He created. It is logical, and it is consistent with the way we see the universe ordered.

The part that is truly amazing is that the Bible reflects this idea completely. The Bible shows God as being outside of time (ref. 2 Peter 3:8, Isaiah 43:13, etc.) and as a non-created being bringing creation forth (ref. John 1:3). It alludes to the universe expanding (Isaiah 42:5, Jeremiah 10:12), and the fact that God can see all of time at one moment (Isaiah 46:10). The idea of God not just having an infinite amount of time, but being outside time altogether is unique to the Bible. No other religious book makes such a claim.

To me, the whole idea of God showing us in His word that He is the Creator, not a creation reinforces my faith. Because modern science is just now getting to the place where we can start to appreciate what it means to be eternal, it demonstrates that we hold to an intelligent faith.

 

[laura_beth]

That is not logical. Please explain why it is possible for God to exist without a creator but not the universe, without contradicting yourself. Also your second statement is a blatant appeal to emotion and thus fallacious.

I hope that what I wrote above answers you.

 

[Salima]

laura_beth, i can safely say, this is the way islam views god. I mean you talk of god being outside time. For we believe god was not born and can never die. I guess this scientific explaination is a good way of describing such a thign for others. Well done.

As you mentined the big bag, I would like ot add soemthing else on this subject.
We know that it happened, but not exaclty why or how but that it just did. And where exaclty did that one atom come from, this one molecule? who created that? No one knows, and admits it easily. Yet you are more insulted by the idea that a god could exist, yet you don't know how or why it all began to begin with. So what's to say a god didn't create such an explosion if this explosion is to be a true event after all consideration.!?

 

[Lundy]

Why the inference that the creator must have been intelligent? Where there is a gap in scientific knowledge why is it considered logical to fill that gap with an intelligent god?

We don't know exactly how the pyramids were built. Are we then to infer that the egyptians were helped by aliens or some other supernatural force, simply because we have no other explanation? that seems ludicris. In a case like that, we have to admit ignorance due to a lack of empirical knowledge. It seems to me the easy way out to paper the cracks with the 'well it must have been god' explanation.

I'm sorry but, the bible is just a book, and one riddled with contradictions at that. There is no proof of God within its pages.

 

[Benny1103]

The idea of God not just having an infinite amount of time, but being outside time altogether is unique to the Bible. No other religious book makes such a claim.

If what you stated in the quote in true then that means that God behaves in ways which humans cannot even begin to comprehend. So how do you know that what you've been reading is accurate? How can you be sure that your interepretation of 'his' words are correct? You can't. So clearly, any reference to the bible you make renders that part of your argument useless.

I hope that what I wrote above answers you.

Illogical inferences made from text which is written by a person do not actually explain anything.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

In the entire realm of existence there are only two types of things: created things and non-created things. Those are the only two types of things that can exist. When we look at man-made objects surrounding us, we see created things. We know they had a beginning, because we've seen them in production, or we have read about their manufacture, etc. These things are easy to classify.

Other things, like those that are found in nature, are also created things. We sometimes understand the processes that began their formation, but we also base that conclusion on the fact that they're following the law of entropy. Things are decaying, eroding, or dying. We can understand that they had a beginning because left to themselves they will deteriorate into something less than what they started. Now, this is not to say that everything that is eternal is not created, but only anything that is not eternal must be a created thing by definition.

From a purely scientific viewpoint, the most upsetting admission of the modern era is when science had proven the universe is running down. This led to Big Bang models and others, but the conclusion that could not be avoided (though they tried very hard through expansion and contraction models, etc.) is that the universe had a beginning, and therefore is a created thing. This admission is huge to those trying to prove the universe doesn't need God to exist!

You were doing good untill that last part... Even if there was some beginning to our universe, that does not mean that there was a 'God' at least not the way you conceptualise a God. You also have to deal with the issue of energy as a constant.

 

[laura_beth]

If what you stated in the quote in true then that means that God behaves in ways which humans cannot even begin to comprehend. So how do you know that what you've been reading is accurate? How can you be sure that your interepretation of 'his' words are correct? You can't. So clearly, any reference to the bible you make renders that part of your argument useless.

God has given us the Bible, to reveal to us His plan for the world and to teach us about Him, and how he has saved us. He created us and so knows what we will and will not be able to comprehend, and while there is debate over parts of the Bible, the constant message is strong - we can not save ourselves, so, by God's grace, Jesus took our place. God has made it so that we can understand and comprehend it. He is a personnal God, and He knows what we will be able to understand. That's why He gave us the Bible in the first place, because we obviously can't figure it all out by ourselves, so once you reach the point of knowing He's there, the Bible shows us the rest.

 

[laura_beth]

You were doing good untill that last part... Even if there was some beginning to our universe, that does not mean that there was a 'God' at least not the way you conceptualise a God. You also have to deal with the issue of energy as a constant.

A little further on, i said:
What we haven't done is label that non-created thing. We call that which is non-created, that which fashioned our existence, "God". We would expect, then, for that non-created thing to be more complex and more intelligent than the thing He created. It is logical, and it is consistent with the way we see the universe ordered.
Before that I explained how I got to that point. So yeah, do you get what I mean? The thing that fashioned our existance, we call 'God'.

 

[Benny1103]

He created us and so knows what we will and will not be able to comprehend,

But how do you know that you are interepreting his words correctly? By accepting that God behaves in ways which humans cannot comprehend you have thrown all logic out the window. As such, you can't just back track and use logic whenever it suits you. Either use logical arguments all of the time or don't use them at all.

I asked you a simple question and you respond with a lot of material which is, put simply, not even related to my question.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I'm with you for everything but

We would expect, then, for that non-created thing to be more complex and more intelligent than the thing He created.

That does not follow at all. Of course I have no problem if you wish to call this 'creative force' god, and you would still probably not deviate from big bang.... However we can see many examples of creation occuring without any form of intelligence what so ever, so the idea that creation requires higher intelligence is not consistent with the way we see the universe ordered.

 

[laura_beth]

I'm with you for everything but


That does not follow at all. Of course I have no problem if you wish to call this 'creative force' god, and you would still probably not deviate from big bang.... However we can see many examples of creation occuring without any form of intelligence what so ever, so the idea that creation requires higher intelligence is not consistent with the way we see the universe ordered.

Yeah ok, I do see what you mean. And I guess that's where we differ and I doubt either of us will change our minds. Though exploring created and noncreated things I came to the conclusion that it makes more sense for the force to be intelligent, to create something out of nothing. But yeah, I think that it's been interesting dicussing it with you Not-That-Bright, but I think after this we'll just go round in cirlces.

 

[Lundy]

If what you stated in the quote in true then that means that God behaves in ways which humans cannot even begin to comprehend. So how do you know that what you've been reading is accurate? How can you be sure that your interepretation of 'his' words are correct? You can't. So clearly, any reference to the bible you make renders that part of your argument useless.

God has given us the Bible, to reveal to us His plan for the world and to teach us about Him, and how he has saved us. He created us and so knows what we will and will not be able to comprehend, and while there is debate over parts of the Bible, the constant message is strong - we can not save ourselves, so, by God's grace, Jesus took our place. God has made it so that we can understand and comprehend it. He is a personnal God, and He knows what we will be able to understand. That's why He gave us the Bible in the first place, because we obviously can't figure it all out by ourselves, so once you reach the point of knowing He's there, the Bible shows us the rest.

God didn't give us the bible. The bible was written by people. If the bible were the true word of god, surely it would be absolutely perfect and not open to interpretation and debate. That it is such a contentious, contradictory piece of work is a clear indication that the book is no more immaculate than any other book in existence.

That people still put their faith in this hokum thousands of years after it was written is really beyond me.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Ok... well there are more problems with your theory, for instance:

Let's take the assumptions one step further now, and for the sake of argument assume that science can never explain how the universe came to be, and some sort of powerful supernatural (or at least, unknown) involvement is necessary.

1. Who is to say that the Creator is still around? Valid possibilities include:
* The Creator created the universe, and then simply left it alone. He neither knows nor cares about any life in it (this is a form of Deism).
* The Creator ceased to exist at the moment of creation. He converted himself into the physical universe, and effectively died at that instant.
* He died of boredom waiting for anything interesting to happen.

Why just one Creator? Why not two, or a dozen, or a million? If you are going to invoke the supernatural, then the idea that there is an individual creator for each and every sub-atomic particle is just as plausible as there being one big one that made everything. Many religions have numerous gods, each being responsible for a different part of the universe. What makes a single creator a better explanation than multiple creators? It is also possible that one Creator made the universe, which was then taken over by another omnipotent critter - a caretaker deity.

It is an unjustified leap to assert that there was a single creator, and that creator must therefore be God as described in the Bible. Again, the creation stories of every other religion, extinct or extant, are equally plausible in this context.

What reason is there to think that a Creator is even remotely interested in human beings, or any other specific form of life? There are, for instance, far more beetles and bacteria that humans, and they have also been around much longer. It could be that humans (and elephants and starfish) are a mere side-effect of a great beetle-breeding experiment!

What reason is there to suppose that life was intended to exist? Living things obviously do exist, but life could merely be an unintended or unimportant side-effect. It may be that a Creator was only interested in making stars, and everything else is just an emergent property caused by the way the universe is set up. Alternatively, the Creator could be some sort of hobbyist who creates universes, lets them run their course to see how they develop, and then starts again with a slightly different configuration. Humans, apart from being the most important part of Creation might merely be a tick on his checklist ("Experiment #1782638, life developed : Yes").

Should it be demonstrated that a Creator does exist, and is interested in us, it still does not follow that we are required to bow down and worship it. Would it even want us to? Why create the enormity of the universe merely to have a single solitary planet briefly inhabited by cringing sycophants?

Life existed on Earth for hundreds of millions of years before humans evolved, and the amount of time we have been around is utterly insignificant relative to the age of the universe. Were we to exist for a hundred million years ourselves, life will still go on afterwards without us, and the universe itself has many billions of years left in it. It seems bizarre (and considerably arrogant) to suggest that it is all here just for our benefit, or purely to ensure that humans came about.

If life has been "designed" from the start, that would suggest that there is some sort of guiding hand behind the processes that form life - evolution. However, evolution generally progresses by the bloody, violent and painful deaths of living things. Carnivores kill and eat herbivores, parasites inject their eggs into living creatures so that they can hatch out and eat the host alive from the inside, disease organisms inflict untold agony on many living things. Also, in order to ensure the eventual formation of specific creatures (e.g. humans), certain events had to happen - mass extinctions caused by meteor strikes, wiping out 90% of life, for example. Either not a good example of intelligent design, or the Designer just like inflicting asteroids, volcanoes, tidal waves and plagues on his dearly loved creations to ensure they evolved in the right direction. In short, the "designer" could not have found a more hideous way to go about creating life forms. Maybe he enjoys seeing pain and suffering? That would appear to be the case, judging from the evidence of life.

This brings us to the concept of a "Powerful Deceiver" - instead of this Creator being an all-powerful, kind, loving entity, what reason is there to think that it is not, in fact, an all-powerful, evil, hateful entity that sees life on Earth much as a child with a magnifying glass sees ants on a sunny day? Being all-powerful, it would be perfectly easy to convince people that he was benevolent, and being mere mortals there is no way we could tell otherwise (convincing ourselves that fires and earthquakes are all part of his mysterious, but no doubt good, Plan for us all). Certainly, judging by the historical (and present day) atrocities committed by followers of an alleged Creator, this is all too easy to suspect (and, of course, just as impossible to disprove as is the idea of a benevolent deity, and therefore no less valid).

It is even possible to postulate a more mundane Creator - an experimental physicist from a civilisation so advanced that even its most basic children's toy would appear miraculous to us, still in the infancy of science. Perhaps our entire universe was generated in an Acme Big Bang machine on her workbench, parameters carefully adjusted to allow for the formation of stars, planets and self-replicating molecules that may one day become alive. Contrived and far-fetched though this may sound, it is (again) equally as valid as anything dreamt up by the founders of any religion. It does though beg the question of the creation of our physicists own universe, but then so does the idea of a Creator beg the question "Who Created the Creator?"




These examples are not intended to show that a Creator cannot exist, but that ID theorists are quite unjustified in going from "We see design in the universe" to "The God of the Bible exists, and Christianity is the One True Religion"

Essentially all that you are left with is:

"An unknown, unknowable entity did it in an unknown manner for unknown reasons."

Bow down in wonder.

 

[withoutaface]

Read it all before you reply, you've asked me to explain so here it is.
In the entire realm of existence there are only two types of things: created things and non-created things. Those are the only two types of things that can exist. When we look at man-made objects surrounding us, we see created things. We know they had a beginning, because we've seen them in production, or we have read about their manufacture, etc. These things are easy to classify.

Other things, like those that are found in nature, are also created things. We sometimes understand the processes that began their formation, but we also base that conclusion on the fact that they're following the law of entropy. Things are decaying, eroding, or dying. We can understand that they had a beginning because left to themselves they will deteriorate into something less than what they started. Now, this is not to say that everything that is eternal is not created, but only anything that is not eternal must be a created thing by definition.

From a purely scientific viewpoint, the most upsetting admission of the modern era is when science had proven the universe is running down. This led to Big Bang models and others, but the conclusion that could not be avoided (though they tried very hard through expansion and contraction models, etc.) is that the universe had a beginning, and therefore is a created thing. This admission is huge to those trying to prove the universe doesn't need God to exist!

Now we can look at the other category, the non-created things. One would expect something that had no beginning to not be constrained to time as we measure it. In fact, most scientists know that time is tied to the universe as a dimension like length, or height, or width (this is why physicists refer to matters as happening in space-time). This idea means that time is a created thing also. A non-created thing would have to exist outside time altogether! We would then expect that non-created thing to never change because, being outside time, it is the same at its beginning, its middle, and its end. A non-created thing must necessarily be eternal.

So, if the created thing must come from something else, then it must come from something that exists prior to it. If we look at all the created things as a whole, they must come from a non-created thing. That is the only logical option open to us!

So far we have made a lot of head way. We know the universe is a created thing. We know that it must come from something else. We know that some type of non-created thing must exist in order to have created things exist. We also know that this non-created thing must be unchanging and outside of time. That is a lot. What we haven't done is label that non-created thing. We call that which is non-created, that which fashioned our existence, "God". We would expect, then, for that non-created thing to be more complex and more intelligent than the thing He created. It is logical, and it is consistent with the way we see the universe ordered.

The part that is truly amazing is that the Bible reflects this idea completely. The Bible shows God as being outside of time (ref. 2 Peter 3:8, Isaiah 43:13, etc.) and as a non-created being bringing creation forth (ref. John 1:3). It alludes to the universe expanding (Isaiah 42:5, Jeremiah 10:12), and the fact that God can see all of time at one moment (Isaiah 46:10). The idea of God not just having an infinite amount of time, but being outside time altogether is unique to the Bible. No other religious book makes such a claim.

To me, the whole idea of God showing us in His word that He is the Creator, not a creation reinforces my faith. Because modern science is just now getting to the place where we can start to appreciate what it means to be eternal, it demonstrates that we hold to an intelligent faith.

The general concensus is that the universe exists as a series of big bangs and crunches, and as such it is eternal. This also leads to the possibility that the universe exists in a loop, with the same things happening after each big bang, and so does not need a creator.

 

[get_born]

[QUOTE



See: Big Bang.

[/QUOTE]

What created the Big Bang?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

See: Big Bang.


What created the Big Bang?

Asking "what created the big bang" just shows you know even less about the theory than me. Anyway, even if we are to somehow imagine it has to be some creative being that created the unverse you still run into all the problems I listed above.

Sorry, your religion is still not validated.

 

[withoutaface]

[QUOTE



See: Big Bang.

What created the Big Bang?[/QUOTE]
It did not need to be created, see above post.

 

[laura_beth]

God didn't give us the bible. The bible was written by people. If the bible were the true word of god, surely it would be absolutely perfect and not open to interpretation and debate. That it is such a contentious, contradictory piece of work is a clear indication that the book is no more immaculate than any other book in existence.

That people still put their faith in this hokum thousands of years after it was written is really beyond me.

Your question is a good one. Many times people will raise an objection to a Christian's belief in the Bible as being the infallible word of God. They claim that using the Bible to support the Bible is "circular reasoning".
We must first remember in discussing the claims of the Bible with anyone, that the Bible is not a single, autonomous work. Rather, it is a collection of 66 different books written over a vast time span in three languages on three continents with authors from every station in life. These ancient works cover every major topic dealing with the human condition including: love, hate, death, sin, marriage, civil laws, and relationships with each other as well as with God. Although these works were written independently, they show an amazing congruency.
Before I go on, please don't argue so critically with me about the bible unless you have read it yourself.

We obviously cannot go into a laboratory and test for "God residue" on the text, so to ask for scientific proof is impossible. (Likewise, asking for scientific proof that one loves his spouse is absurd. True science is limited to making claims on that which it can disprove through experimentation. Since science does not have any objective standards for measuring "God-ness", it cannot be asked to make a determination on His existence.) This doesn't mean we cannot reach a satisfactory conclusion based on the evidence before us, though.

What we are really interested in, then, is to determine if the Bible is a book that is the true words of God given to men, or is it merely the words of men written about God? If it is the latter, then it should display characteristics like those of other books written by men about God. It really shouldn't be all that different from many other works we possess. However, if it did come from God... well it should be astoundingly different. It should be a very one of a kind collection. It should be unique.

Let's examine what we do know about the Bible and see if it aligns with what we'd expect from a message whose source is God. We'll accept the premises that God exists and He created humanity with a desire to know Him. Anyone questioning these ideas is arguing another point; one which must be addressed separately.

There is no valid reason to believe that the men who wrote the Bible were lying or trying to deceive. The New Testament particularly shows that the character of the writers was beyond reproach. Each of them suffered and were executed because they would not recant their position that the teachings of the Bible are true and accurate. If their testimony was made up for gain or folly, surely someone would have renounced his stand to save his life, but it did not happen. All the apostles and the writers believed unwaveringly that the Bible was absolute fact.

The things predicted in the Bible happened. The message of us not being able to save ourselves from God's judgement, but only through Christ can we be saved, is constant through the entire Bible. To have sixty six books written by about forty authors, from kings and nobles to fishermen and soldiers, in three languages and on three continents, be of the same mind is just not humanly possible.

The coming of the Jewish Messiah is the focus of the Old Testament. There are over 300 separate prophecies about the "Holy One of Israel" found there. They are so specific as to predict the city of Jesus' birth (Micah 5:2), His nature (Isaiah 7:14), His works of healing and miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6), His betrayal for thirty pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12-13), His suffering (Isaiah 53), His style of execution (Psalm 22) and His resurrection (Psalm 16:10, Acts 13:35) amongst other things. These prophecies were written anywhere from 400 to 1000 years before Jesus' birth, yet they describe His life with the accuracy of an eyewitness. The odds against a living person meeting even a few of these predictions is so astronomical it is considered an impossibility.


In Isaiah 44:27, there is an example of a prophesy. This prophecy was written around 690 BC. History tells us that in 538 BC a Persian general named Cyrus had devised a plan to overtake the impregnable city of Babylon. He dammed up the river running through the city and sent soldiers under the gates. When he got to the front gates, however, he found them unlocked and took the entire city without a problem. In one night the most secure empire in the world of that time was overthrown. It was described by God to Cyrus, and addressed to him by name, 150 years before he had even been born!

One other prophecy we can examine is one that has been fulfilled in modern times. Israel is an amazement sociologically. Never in the history of mankind has a nation been overthrown and obliterated for 1900 years and then come back into existence. Yet, this is exactly what has happened to the nation of Israel, and they reside in the same geographic area as they previously possessed. This is found in Isiah chapter 11.

There is so much more evidence! I've written enough for now, but you can find books filled with evidence of the Bible everywhere. Read one and keep finding out.

When the evidence is studied, it leads to an inescapable conclusion: the Bible must come from a source other than that of natural man. It is a reliable document that faithfully records history and in that record it documents God intervening in the lives of men. The New Testament verifies that the Old Testament is the word of God, and Peter verifies that the writings of Paul are Scriptural; that is from God(2 Peter 3:16). Peter also states, "No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.(2 Peter 1:21)" This is a consistent message throughout the Bible.